CreateDebate


Debate Info

104
117
Trust Worthy Untrust Worthy
Debate Score:221
Arguments:149
Total Votes:263
Ended:01/10/13
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Trust Worthy (66)
 
 Untrust Worthy (76)

Debate Creator

LordChallen(184) pic



This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.

How far can the Bible be Trusted?

There are many in between answers.   A couple of suggestions though. . . . .

. . . . . As a Historical Reference.

. . . . . As a Spiritual Reference.

. . . . . As a influence on mankind.

. . . . . As a current and future asset.

Trust Worthy

Side Score: 104
VS.

Untrust Worthy

Side Score: 117
Winning Side!
5 points

I think I'd choose this side because for me, it weighs the trustworthy than the untrustworthy.

As a historical reference, well, that is really one drawback of the Bible. Some of the events were not really accurate when you look at the history of the world. Also, other events in history were done of after the Bible was written.

As a spiritual reference, I think it helps Catholics like me in viewing my values in life. It also gives me sayings and learn from them. Like the 8 beatitudes, which gives me hope whenever I am down.

As an influence on mankind, I think the Bible also helps me in doing the things that I have to do. Like being nice to people even if they are not nice to you.

As a current and future asset, why not? If it helps people to be good to others then I think it could also be helpful.

Side: Trust Worthy
4 points

I agree with you Cambriel. It has it's issues, but all in all, it's donr a lot for us and still has a lot to often.

Side: Trust Worthy
Jace(4706) Disputed
3 points

As a spiritual reference: There is no lesson in Christianity that cannot be found in a secular fashion, and that without the prejudice, judgement, and slaughter that has accompanied the faith.

As an influence on mankind: Honestly, I find it concerning that you need a book to tell you that you should be nice to other people. If you need a reason to do that then you could find it without holy scripture. Regardless, this has little to do with religion having a positive influence on mankind. If you look at the impact of religion on humanity you get the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Conquests, and a history plagued with discrimination and prejudice. Not to mention how much religion has held back science.

As a current and future asset: In my personal experience, far more people use the Bible and religion to justify their prejudice and hatred towards others than use it to help themselves be good to others. I would also like to reiterate that there is no positive aspect that can be gained from the Bible and religion which cannot also be gained from a secular approach without the accompanying harms of religion.

Side: Untrust Worthy
Cambriel(711) Disputed
3 points

not to mention how much religion has held back science

Not really. Science progresses even without the help of religion. Many people discover things in our world and religion is not one of the drawbacks and it is not religion's fault why there are some things that are undescribed in this world.

in your personal experience, far more people use the bible and religion to justify their prejudice and hatred towards others that use it to help themselves be good to others

Thats just your personal experience. But in my personal experience, it just serves as guidelines for us catholics to be good to others. We are helping ourselves by doing these things.

that secular approach that your saying

Im not really interested in knowing that because i have my own opinions and beliefs in my life. Im happy with my bible

Side: Trust Worthy
LordChallen(184) Disputed
2 points

Honestly, I find it concerning that you need a book to tell you that you should be nice to other people.

Sure, you say that now. I find that Atheists (not saying that you are) tend to be more "creatorists" then Christians. Man didn't just spring from the ground. The Bible did not make man barbaric.

Side: Trust Worthy
LordChallen(184) Disputed
2 points

In my personal experience, far more people use the Bible and religion to justify their prejudice and hatred towards others than use it to help themselves be good to others.

.

Jace, let's narrow in on something you said here.

far more people use the Bible and religion to justify their prejudice and hatred towards others

.

I'll bold it twice, because it was well said. to justify

.

The Bible didn't create prejudice or hatred. A few years ago America and it's allies invaded Iraq in the name of Democracy. The Bible is old hat. To America, Democracy is beautiful, why not force it upon people?

.

There is technically nothing about Democracy that justifies the invasion of another county, but we made it fit.

.

The Inquisition was about politics and attempts to control spice trade, mass thinking, control education, control medicine, and suppress rebels.

.

The Crusades were about spice trade, specially about sugar. Sugar became the engine for slave trade, invasions, etc. Of course they needed the church to back them.

.

Conquests were about land, gold, and again, believe it or not. . . . . sugar. The word "Spice" gives it such a lovely spin, don't you think?

.

Religion and the Bible begged people to be nice to each other, love each other, to do unto others as they would have done unto them. Jesus tried to convince people that cruelty of the OT was done with. That people cling to that shit has NOTHING to do with their desire to be righteous.

.

When people quote the Bible to me, they don't give a shit about my soul. They just want a stick that they believe they can beat me with. The need to be right, powerful, justified, etc, is a human issue, not a Bible issue.

.

And you made the comment that I find it concerning that you need a book to tell you that you should be nice to other people. You seriously have too much faith in man. We are on the top of the food chain in a world used to be filled with monsters and deadly creatures. We are the meanest ass creatures in this quadrant of the galaxy.

.

There are a couple sweet hearts out there. . . and maybe you are one, but most of us have got the capacity of a cold blooded killer inside.

Side: Trust Worthy
4 points

I dont think it works well as historical reference because too much of it is inaccurate but it does show how people used to think in times gone by. Basically I think the Bible is a good Philosophical and Spiritual tool not something to be taken at face value but a kind of guide book for the soul it might help guide people in their life but creates as many questions as it answers.

Side: Trust Worthy

See, I agree with this too. It has myths, legends, and such. It's shows what we used to think, and in some case, how we tried to lie or cover shit up. I love it for the reasons alone.

Side: Trust Worthy

It is good for giving some general guides lines to living a good life, altough there are parts of the bible that are not as appliable as they once were due to changes in soceity. I think alot of people can benefit from some of the parables in the bible as a teaching tool for certain moral ideals or as inspiration to their own writing. Robert Frost used the book of job as his inspiration for the "masque of reason".

As for historical study, the bible is useful as a reference, but it is not a perfect one since there has been mutiable translations. Still it is useful to get an idea of what the average person's life included.

Side: Trust Worthy
2 points

I strongly believe that the Bible can be trusted in all 4 of the categories you mention. First of all there is not any other book in the entire earth that is as unique as the Bible. For it was composed by 40 diffrent authors by a span of about 1500 years. So the question is, can it be trusted? Well if you look at the Bible's overall message, you will see that it teaches good moral value and wisdom. From the psalms of David, to the proverbs and songs of Solomon, to the parables of Jesus, and the teachings of Paul. There is so much wisdom and knowledge you can convey from it. It is the central theme of which most modern western society is founded upon. For me thats what matters. There are some historical things that might be debatable here in there. But its central message is not debatable. Its a guide to live a life full of hapiness, joy, love, peace and find comfort when you need it.

Side: Trust Worthy
6 points

How unique a document is has nothing to do with how trustworthy it is.

You seem to admit that the historical credibility of the Bible is up for debate, so I'll leave that alone.

But its central message is not debatable. Its a guide to live a life full of hapiness, joy, love, peace and find comfort when you need it.

If you read the Bible one way, you have a guide to living a happy life; if you read it another way, you have a charter for barbarism. I'm my experience it makes a great deal more difference who is reading scripture, not what they're reading. I'd wager that you take verses like "love your neighbor" to heart, but you ignore and gloss over verses like "if children curse they should be stoned to death."

So clearly the Bible isn't your moral guide; you are. You are the best means you have to living a happy, joyful, loving, peaceful, and comfortable life, not the Bible. If the Bible was the best moral guide and you followed it to the letter you would very quickly find yourself in a state or federal penitentiary. Without you to filter the nuggets of wisdom from the barbaric muck and shit that permeates the Bible the book is almost worthless.

Side: Untrust Worthy
2 points

Yep. The central message of the bible IS very debatable. The central message I get from it, is God is vengeful and not only likes to kill mass quantities of people (flood/sodom and gommora/curses on egypt... hell the entire old testament), but is planning on doing it again (revelations).

An apocalypse... ? fuck that shit. I'm fighting back. build more nukes, there's a sociopath running around loose in heaven!

Side: Untrust Worthy

Probably about as far as you can throw it. And if you can throw it pretty darn far..., you should join the American Shot Put Olympic team ;)

Side: Trust Worthy

I think I'd choose this side because for me, it weighs the trustworthy than the untrustworthy.

As a historical reference, well, that is really one drawback of the Bible. Some of the events were not really accurate when you look at the history of the world. Also, other events in history were done of after the Bible was written.

As a spiritual reference, I think it helps Catholics like me in viewing my values in life. It also gives me sayings and learn from them. Like the 8 beatitudes, which gives me hope whenever I am down.

As an influence on mankind, I think the Bible also helps me in doing the things that I have to do. Like being nice to people even if they are not nice to you.

As a current and future asset, why not? If it helps people to be good to others then I think it could also be helpful.

Side: Trust Worthy
4 points

Well it says man was made from dirt; women made from a rib bone, that children should be stoned to death if they were to speak swear words at their parents, women should be kept silent and cover their heads, etc.

Btw Untrustworthy, no space, and "As an influence on mankind" no "a".

Side: Untrust Worthy
4 points

as far as you can throw it.

Side: Untrust Worthy
LordChallen(184) Disputed
1 point

It's a big book. Does this mean that you are good with it, or not?

Side: Trust Worthy
3 points

It's a fictional book designed to brainwash people into following and giving money to a certain organization. The Bible has limited truth, if that, and shouldn't even exist. The fact that it still exists in modern society is just a sign of how idiotic people can be.

Side: Untrust Worthy
2 points

Too right. L. Ron Hubbard is the closest thing the modern world has to Jesus: skeezy, probably un-bathing, secretly greedy but always with a generous front. Well, I guess Mother Theresa would be a close second to L.Ron H. Xenu.

Side: Untrust Worthy
LordChallen(184) Disputed
1 point

Wow, that is rough. Shouldn't even exist? Moses, very possibility an rebel Egyptian prince took his "workers" and skipped out on Ramses II, was probably one of the greatest influences in the world. I really don't feel like an idiotic pondering his intent.

Side: Trust Worthy
3 points

". . . . . As a Historical Reference."

1. There is no geological evidence of a global flood.

2. Science clearly shows that the universe was not created in seven days

Argument over.

Side: Untrust Worthy
LordChallen(184) Disputed
1 point

There was a global flood. Ice Age causes them all of the time. Time refers obviously have issues. But as a Mystic, Moses might have tried to document things hard to understand. And get over the seven day thing. Rome wasn't built in a day either.

Side: Trust Worthy
wtfiswrong(47) Disputed
3 points

The ice ages caused Global floods? The entire surface of the earth was covered by water? And this happened all the time? Please, educate me on this. Where can I learn more?

I'm over the seven day thing. I'm quite sure it's untrue and that's one of the reasons I do not trust the bible.

Side: Untrust Worthy
2 points

I don't think it's trustworthy. Don't get me wrong, I do believe in some sort of higher power. But The Bible just doesn't make sense most of the time. I like some of the values it teaches, but the stories through which those values are taught, I don't believe in. Plus, it contradicts itself some. It says that God is all loving and accepts everyone. It also says that God hates gays and they are banished to hell. So, which is true?

Side: Untrust Worthy
3 points

Do you have any passage that says that God directly hates gays?

Side: Trust Worthy
Gokumohan(335) Disputed
4 points

Levictus 18:22 20:30

Before you go all "that's the old testament" on me

Luke 16:17

Side: Untrust Worthy
LordChallen(184) Disputed
1 point

Do you have any passage that says that God directly hates gays?

.

I don't keep any in my house. I live next to a church though, maybe they keep some on hand.

Side: Untrust Worthy
TheAshman(2299) Clarified
2 points

The whole God hating Gays thing comes from the Old Testament which was the bit for Jews, Jesus never actually said anything about Gays the part in the New Testament some Christians use to justify their Homophobia comes from a mistranslation in the book of Paul although they wont listen to you

Side: Trust Worthy
LordChallen(184) Disputed
1 point

It also says that God hates gays and they are banished to hell.

It really doesn't say that except for one fleeting phrase, which basically says eating pork and not covering your poop are also reasons to die.

One thing I think people don't consider is evolution. The Ten Commandments were cutting edge law at the time. The eye for an eye thing was actually very merciful. It was a day when hurting someone meant you were killed without a trial. Many of the laws required that you at least be given a chance. In other words, it was unlawful to kill someone who might have poked your out. That was big stuff at the time.

People really take the Bible out of context. It was sort of a history and law book of people thousands of years ago. We might have misunderstood history, but at least people had a perspective on it.

Side: Trust Worthy
Jace(4706) Clarified
2 points

It was sort of a history and law book of people thousands of years ago.

In other words, it is an outdated book written by people who lived in societies quite different from ours and who embraced ideas which we find now to be obsolete. As a consequence, "believers" pick and choose what to believe in and construe the Bible to fit with their beliefs. What, exactly, makes a text like that trustworthy?

Side: Trust Worthy
2 points

The Ten Commandments were cutting edge law at the time.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that these laws that we theoretically got handed to us straight from god we're only a slight bit more advanced (in some areas) than the general morality of the culture and time period? I mean, this is god we're talking about here. We shouldn't be able to look at his carved in stone moral commandments and say "well they we're pretty good for 2000 years ago." No! I would expect a moral code that would baffle us even today. A moral code that is timeless and universally applicable. I wouldn't expect a law handed down from god to expire and go out of date in a few centuries. Or we should be getting regular updates to the commandments as time goes on, but for whatever reason god only ever decided to blatantly intervene in human affairs for a short period of time a couple thousand years ago in the illiterate, barbaric Middle East, so that's obviously not happening.

If out of nowhere a prophet 2000 years ago produced a tablet that said stuff like "Don't keep slaves; all men and women are equal; homosexuals are people too; etc," then I would be impressed, and then I would think perhaps some divine intervention was needed to produce such a document.

Side: Untrust Worthy
2 points

I'd say that it has a cultural bias, and would not use it as a source. It is a chronicle of a people, though.

Side: Untrust Worthy
2 points

A seriously larger percentage of the bible is false. Historically, physically, or scientifically. Nearly every part if the bible violates one or more if these in some way. These would be examples if the bible just being wrong which makes it untrustworthy.

The bible is ever changing. The bible has been changed hundreds of times by the hundreds of authors and scribes who read and copied or translated it to say what they wanted it to. What we have now is not even CLOSE to what the original said. Thinking that is like being the idiot at the end of a game of telephone believing what he heard was the original phrase. An example of this is when King James changed "thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live" to "thou shalt not let a WITCH to live". That is not a misstranslation. It is a personal adgenda that the king used the bible for. Thats all it's ever been a tool for. These things make the information untrustworthy.

There are tons of contradictions in the bible. Whether its small things like dates or big things like events that did or didn't happen, many contradictions exist between books or even verses. This makes the information untrustworthy.

Nobody knows who wrote it. It was not a historian. Historians did live at the supposed time of Christ yet not a one who's works we read today who lived in that area and time wrote anything about Jesus. It was these peoples JOBS to write the events down around them exactly for future peoples. Were supposed to believe these people didn't write this astounding information down but some average Joe did? And someone from a time where most were illiterate? Ok. This makes it untrustworthy.

It is 2000+ years old. It should not be taken as truth. We dont still accept 2000 year old science concepts like flat earth or 2000 year old medical practices. Why should this be any different?

It is a silly fairytale book with ZERO evidence for the bulk of it. Many Christians will way "oh well they found out that this city existed" or "this battle really happened". Ok yeah that's great but just because A existed doesnt mean G, H, and Z are true too. For example, they say Jerusalem exists (obviously). But that doesnt mean Jesus turned water into wine. You need evidence to back up every single claim. I use the Harry potter analogy. Just because London exists doesnt mean Harry potter does.

Side: Untrust Worthy
LordChallen(184) Disputed
3 points

The bible has been changed hundreds of times by the hundreds of authors and scribes who read and copied or translated it to say what they wanted it to.

Sounds like the Internet. I take everything I read with a grain of salt.

And if you don't mind. I've read the Bible, some parts more then once, but I don't remember the Bible ever making a stand on the shape of the Earth. If you don't mind. . . . . .

Side: Trust Worthy
AveSatanas(4426) Clarified
3 points

Precisely. You can't believe everything you read. That's just common knowledge.

The bible makes quite a few references to the earth having corners and ends. I have a link if you want. It's can be pretty much infered because the bible came well before the discovery of the round earth. In fact, the guy who figured it out was ridiculed by the church and probably threatened. So if it was in the bible that it was round, that wouldnt make sense. Or the church just didn't get the memo.

Side: Trust Worthy
AveSatanas(4426) Clarified
2 points

Precisely. You can't believe everything you read. That's just common knowledge.

The bible makes quite a few references to the earth having corners and ends. I have a link if you want. It's can be pretty much infered because the bible came well before the discovery of the round earth. In fact, the guy who figured it out was ridiculed by the church and probably threatened. So if it was in the bible that it was round, that wouldnt make sense. Or the church just didn't get the memo.

Side: Trust Worthy
2 points

TL;DR. I've only one point and it is this: the bible calls the moon a light source.

Side: Untrust Worthy
LordChallen(184) Disputed
0 points

Reality is a perspective. If you are looking up in the sky at night and the Moon is bright. . . . it is a light source. When I turn on a mercury vapor light, where exactly is the light coming from? The electricity excites the mercury particles causing them vibrate faster and faster, eventually giving off a strong glow. The Mercury isn't the light source, it's just a tuned oscillator excited to intense levels. The moon is basically the same. As a matter of perspective. . . . it's a light source, if not quite the light generator.

Side: Trust Worthy
TheBogle88(115) Disputed
1 point

"As a matter of perspective" is NOT trustworthy evidence; it's specifically UN-trustworthy. Anecdotal or unfalsifiable evidence is worthless. Just because something APPEARS one way does not mean that it is so.

Side: Untrust Worthy
1 point

Therefore, we can all agree on what a knife is; what red is; how long gestation takes in various animals; sentence structures; languages; you get the idea. Perception can be separated into five basic levels:total-collective, partial-collective, communal, interpersonal, and individual. Throughout each of these levels, there are points of commonality that permeate higher and higher until they become standard and eventually they become all-encompassing. For instance, no matter how you "perceive" biochemistry, you'll still die in a vacuum.

Side: Untrust Worthy
LordChallen(184) Disputed
0 points

we can all agree on what a knife is;

Agreement is vital for human communication. I love it.

However, even if every living thing on the planet agrees, it doesn't make a thing so. Only that we perceive it as so.

Side: Trust Worthy
TheBogle88(115) Disputed
1 point

We're not changing the knife by calling it something else. Communicating and describing, recording and replicating results all lead us to one conclusion: we all experience and perceive things within a fairly narrow range of perception.

I will agree that unanimous agreement doesn't change reality. If that were true, god would exist.

Side: Untrust Worthy
1 point

"If you are looking up in the sky at night and the Moon is bright. . . . it is a light source." I can't see a curve in the earth; it must be flat. I can't explain those lights in the sky; it must be god. Honestly, is that the type of logic you're comfortable using?

This is a perfect example of absolutism as absurdity. One of the few things we know is that most things don't have to be precise; even if it's minuscule, there will most likely be a margin of error. Record keeping, replication, and a sort of scientific ratification are required for anything to be accepted as fact. The entire tenet of faith is that you accept things without proof; that is why I wonder why theists bother arguing at all.

The Bible is bullshit, the Koran is a lie. The Bhagavad Gita did not fall from the sky.- Corporate Avenger

Side: Untrust Worthy
LordChallen(184) Disputed
0 points

"If you are looking up in the sky at night and the Moon is bright. . . . it is a light source." I can't see a curve in the earth; it must be flat. I can't explain those lights in the sky; it must be god. Honestly, is that the type of logic you're comfortable using?

.

Sir TheBogle88,

.

I am not comfortable logic like that. I question everything, the Science Channel says to do so. What I am trying to say, if I wrote a love letter about the beauty of the sunset and how it reminded me of your eyes and other crap. . . . it's a perspective. Actual truth cannot be documented, only our perception of it. The idea of fact is not actual truth, but rather agreed upon reality.

.

I felt a little bit like you do when I was young. I thought the Bible was a horrible story. But I found my self looking for "perspective" and the Bible offered me some of that. I don't look for people to give me truth though. Only I can decide what is truth, but I sometime do that by listening to others. . . . . not often, but some times.

Side: Trust Worthy
TheBogle88(115) Disputed
1 point

I thought the Bible was a horrible story. I've always found it to be a fantastic story; but, a story nonetheless. Only I can decide what is truth Arrogant, much?

Side: Untrust Worthy
TheBogle88(115) Disputed
1 point

Actual truth cannot be documented, only our perception of it. False: When enough independent tests confirm something to be a certain way a certain percentage of the time, it can then be considered true. What you want is 100%; an impossibility. Since you can't have it, you declare everything to be invalid and truth to be an impossibility, despite countless mathematical, historical, scientific, and anatomical examples that discount that.

You assume creation, either by deity or mentality; what evidence do you provide? Why do you assume such? Do you interpret current evidence as supporting a deistic reality?

Side: Untrust Worthy
TheBogle88(115) Disputed
1 point

If you're not comfortable using that type of logic, then why are you using it?

""If you are looking up in the sky at night and the Moon is bright. . . . it is a light source." I can't see a curve in the earth; it must be flat. I can't explain those lights in the sky; it must be god. Honestly, is that the type of logic you're comfortable using?

.

Sir TheBogle88,

.

I am not comfortable logic like that. I question everything, the Science Channel says to do so. What I am trying to say, if I wrote a love letter about the beauty of the sunset and how it reminded me of your eyes and other crap. . . . it's a perspective. Actual truth cannot be documented, only our perception of it. The idea of fact is not actual truth, but rather agreed upon reality." <-- LordChallen

Reality is a perspective. If you are looking up in the sky at night and the Moon is bright. . . . it is a light source. When I turn on a mercury vapor light, where exactly is the light coming from? The electricity excites the mercury particles causing them vibrate faster and faster, eventually giving off a strong glow. The Mercury isn't the light source, it's just a tuned oscillator excited to intense levels. The moon is basically the same. As a matter of perspective. . . . it's a light source, if not quite the light generator. <-- LordChallen

Side: Untrust Worthy
wtfiswrong(47) Disputed
1 point

So by your argument, if actual truth cannot be documented, then we should not consider the bible as actual truth. Jesus, then is not "the truth, the way and the light", he is "the perception of the truth, the way and the light".

Side: Untrust Worthy
1 point

We know it can't be trusted about the creation of the earth; it's version clearly violates almost every major scientific law established in human history. We know it can't be trusted to be a Moral compass, especially the Old Testament. Religions can never be trusted, as they are nothing more than very large and ornate cults operate using the same feelings of shame and confusion, the appeal of comfort & community. It's essentially a pyramid scheme mixed with mythology expertly re-crafted by the Vatican and other various religious groups to control what has turned into the largest voting bloc in the United States.

Side: Untrust Worthy
LordChallen(184) Disputed
1 point

Sir TheBogle88 says

We know it can't be trusted about the creation of the earth; it's version clearly violates almost every major scientific law established in human history.

.

I just looked this up. I have read this shit in twenty years, but this some good shit.

Genesis 1:2

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

I have forgotten this stuff and found again on my own. God is pure mathematical truth. Such truth creates what is a called the "Living Truth" which is conscious and fits into every most tiny holes existence has to often. Truth is everywhere that is a "where." All the laws and principles of the universe could fit into a neutrino and room to spare. And such truth is conscious, and thus, God is omni-aware.

.

All things are created spiritually before the created physically. The earth was formless because it didn't have matter or shape. God says, "Light there be light." There are things about the Big Bang theory that defy logic. How did all of the matter in the universe condense into one place? Stars that collapse go Super Nova. How is it that all matter was able to condense like that without it all going Super Nova long before?

.

Second Issue. We used to think that space was infinite but now we realize that we were wrong. The universe is actually shaped like a donut and the 3 dimensional shapes we see are actually wrapped around something else. If you threw a baseball in space and waited, it would be eventually hit you in the back of the head.

.

The universe is not expanding into space, for the universe is the space. And if so? How did "space" condense down like that.

.

Third Issue. (and this is my last one because I want go mediate.) When the Big Bang happened, there Matter and Anti-Matter. Matter and Anti-Matter consume each other. When the explosion happened, the matter and anti-matter instantly consumed about 99.99% of the Matter. The universe is the 0.01% of that original mass. But how can Matter and Anti-Matter exist in the same space anyway. There is not evidence that when a star goes Supernova that this split of Matter and Anti-Matter happens.

.

Somewhere out there in the Void is another universe made of Anti-Matter that is basically our evil twin. Of the 0.01% left, 97% of that Energy and Matter instantly ascend to higher plane of existence because the blast so great. This is currently known as Dark Energy and Matter. We know it there, we just can see it. However scientists have been arguing for years over the idea of Gravity. Some say that it doesn't exist and upsets others, because obviously it does. But now more are willing to considered that it doesn't. Without Dark Energy the universe would have collapsed a long time, but Dark Energy seems actually be stretching the Universe. And some are proposing the gravity is actually a "transmitted" effect from the 4th dimension, (that place with all of the Dark Energy.)

.

So it is possible that life exists in the Dark Energy and Matter, that is actually 97% of our universe.

.

I could get into it more, but my point. It really isn't that far off what modern science is beginning to see. There is a hidden dimension within our universe that is huge, and it is "high energy" sort of like what a "heavens" would be like.

Side: Trust Worthy
TheBogle88(115) Disputed
1 point

God is pure mathematical truth. Prove it, mathematically.

So it is possible that life exists in the Dark Energy and Matter, that is actually 97% of our universe. None of this points to the existence or even the likely probability of god. You see what you want to.

Believe me, I want their to be a benevolent being who wants to save my soul, but there is no reason for me to believe one actually exists.

Side: Untrust Worthy